Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

HiLo48 civility

We've had a bit of a flare-up over at WP:ITN/C that could use administrator attention. User:HiLo48 has been showing significant anger lately over postings of items, and it's leading to increasing name-calling. On 16 July, for example, he responds to the posts of other editors by calling them "arrogance": [1]. Two days ago he called User:BorgQueen's posting of an item "quite immoral" [2] and "stupidly rapid" [3]; he also calls another user's comment "stupid" in the latter and insults the manners of American editors as a whole. Several editors have directly requested that he be more civil [4], to which he responded "LOL".[5] After a dozen posts with this tone in that thread, he then proceeded to open continued discussion in a new forum, bludgeoning each oppose vote as invalid and misunderstanding him, posting about twenty times (see thread at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. This afternoon he responded to one post asking if the user was an idiot in an edit titled "Bullshit".[6] I asked him again to be civil [7] and he responded that he was not being uncivil, but I had simply misunderstood.[8]

I'd ask that HiLo receive some sort of block or warning for his behavior. I respect that we disagree, and I hope that he'll contribute constructively and respectfully again in the future. This repeated name-calling and hostility, though, is needlessly poisoning the atmosphere of the project. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related historical ANI and WT:ITN discussions on similar behaviour from HiLo48 can be found: here, here, here and here, amongst others. Once, we can AGF. Twice, you get weary. Three times, you wonder why nothing's been done. We're well past that now… and still nothing's been done. I appreciate Khazar's efforts in bringing this to a wider audience at ANI.—Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally three strikes and you're out, right? And this editor has had, as per Strange Passerby, over three strikes before this last one? After at least four previous discussions on basically the same sort of matter, I rather doubt at this point a simple warning would do any good. But such comments as those above do nothing to contribute to the atmosphere or even the opinion of others regarding the person making the comments. I tend to agree that some sort of block or ban seems called for, but I'm not sure based on the above what kind of action or how long it would optimally be. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, every time I've looked in at ITNC, he has displayed the exact same behaviour. Personally, I'd say a topic ban would be useful. Maybe in a couple months he can then return to the arena with a better attitude. Resolute 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is sufficient. His attitude is generally uncivil, confrontational, needlessly argumentative, and exceedingly pedantic. For example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Earth_creationism_and_Gnosticism, where he tells Dweller to 'run off to Conservapedia' after Dweller took issue with his tone; Talk:Mitt_Romney#Romney.27s_behavior_at_Cranbrook_school, where he deploys his usual high-handed tone to dismiss the valid concerns of others; Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy:_Minute_of_Silence_for_murdered_Israeli_athletes, where he accuses others of Wikilawyering whilst engaging in exactly that behaviour himself; and right here, below this comment. He's very fond of saying provocative things, and then claiming not to have said them because he did not, in exactly as many words, say the precise thing he's accused of. Calling me an idiot talk ITN talk is a fine example - he provided a neat Morton's fork, whereby I was either a troll or an idiot, and then rejected the accusation of having called me an idiot. No doubt if he had been reprimanded for saying I was trying to provoke him, he would have said that he hadn't said that, either. It is the Magician's force technique, and we shouldn't fall for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Khazar2 accuses me of name calling, then provides precisely zero examples of me doing so. I have certainly expressed dissatisfaction with the BEHAVIOUR of other editors. That is NOT name calling. I choose my words carefully. Others might do well to try to do the same thing themselves. I proposed a radical change. I have been involved in introducing change in many organisations over my life. I know that it's common for one of the first reactions to a new and radical idea is for those used to the old ways to feel threatened and to attack the person with the new idea. That certainly happened with my suggestion at [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F]. An independent observer looking here should definitely look at the reactions of several editors there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I commented earlier this year on HiLo48's ongoing long-term incivility and disruption of the ITN feature [9] and am not surprised to find this matter at ANI. The solution is a topic ban of substantial duration. Jusdafax 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite some record - as Strange Passerby has also highlighted above. For what it's worth, I advocate a complete ban for at least a month; preferably longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make the point that I have gone out of my way to warn HiLo48 in that same thread [10]. Now that I understand that HiLo48 by no means restricts his abusive commentary to the ITN feature, I have started a subsection to block him as a preventative measure. Judging from his reply he is unrepentant. And having dealt with him for years, in my view he is a poor candidate for mentoring. Jusdafax 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that an ITN topic ban misses the broader point of this user's difficulties with comprehending how to interact with others on Wikipedia. See ([11]), which was NOT at ITN. Arguing in defence of ridiculing others' religions is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Making ill-informed guesses about the personal beliefs of other users is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Telling other users to leave Wikipedia is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. I think this user needs to radically adjust their norms of interaction. Banning him from ITN won't address the issue, but will just push the bad behaviour elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what HiLo48 says above, his intent is to comment on the behavior of other editors, and he doesn't see this as relating to Civility. Perhaps a better explanation is needed as to why this comes off as incivil to some editors and how Civility is bigger than just "No Personal Attacks"? It sounds like HiLo48 is perfectly willing to comply with Civility policy, but has not yet seen how this applies to his actions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any contact with HiLo before, but I'm not impressed at what I've seen. The diffs provided by the editors above demonstrate a sustained problem of incivility towards other editors. What is even more worrying is that HiLo seems never to acknowledge that his manner is utterly inappropriate (indeed, his response to this report, claiming that there are no example of name calling illustrate this nicely). If it was just a case of incivility from an editor who knew he'd done wrong, I think we could be lenient. However, the long-term nature of the problem, and the inability to even understand that his tone is regularly inappropriate, suggests to me that a block of some length may be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans work where it's the nature of the topic that stimulates bad behaviour. I really don't think that's the case here. I'm also not sure a block is a great idea. HiLo is capable of being constructive and productive and much of their contribution history is positive. It's when dealing with other editors that the problems come in... the talk page history includes much that is really problematic. Blocking HiLo IMO does not generate a strong possibility of improved behaviour in the future because I think they genuinely don't understand what they're doing wrong. I'd ideally want HiLo to agree to being mentored and then we'll have the thorny problem of finding a suitable mentor who agrees to doing the job. If that fails, I'm concerned that a block will begin a sad route, via future blocks to an eventual ban and that would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said above, anyone looking for incivility need only look at several of the responses to my sincere suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring would be a good step forwards, if HiLo will agree to it and we can find a suitable mentor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is a good editor, but inclined to be intemperate and uncivil, which detracts from his contribution. His response to warnings and relevant wikiprocess is to become increasingly uncivil. A good example is his contributions during discussion on the Craig Thomson affair which made the news due to the level of poor behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, HiLo's tendency to directly attack an editor isn't limited to ITN. HiLo was involved in an article with another editor, who brought the issue to ANI. I'd done some poking about on the talk page and generally found that if things don't go HiLo's way, their outbursts are pretty explosive. These were some of the gems I found last time. Here, here and here. Back then, HiLo's behaviour was buried under the subsequent discussion in to the disruptive behaviour of the other editor. I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up again. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't topic ban HiLo48. I hope this process has given the editor pause, and that they will take a self imposed break to realize that ultimately Wikipedia is not that important :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of examples from a move discussion a month ago; WTF?, ...language usage in Minnesota is of even less relevance here, Why make such a dumb comment?, Some editors don't fucking read what others post!!!!!!!. At best, his posts are sarcastic. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed block or topic ban from ITN of HiLo48

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support block - On further contemplation of this issue, I'd agree that not just a topic ban but a block is called for regarding HiLo48's long-term and ongoing disruption, including the ITN feature as seen in discussions [12] and this one where consensus was reached that HiLo's actions were unacceptable [13]. This has gone on far too long, in my view, and it appears to me now that the problem extends further than I realized. Jusdafax 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in line with Dweller's comment above. With no specific appraisal of HiLo48's comments with respect to civility, if there is indeed an issue here then mentoring is far more likely to produce a desirable result. This seems like a situation that requires a more nuanced approach to solve than simply wheeling out the brute force solution of the blockhammer. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban I have to say, the civility issue is clear here, but I think a block is unnecessary. HiLo is a good editor. Perhaps a topic ban to let HiLo cool his heels a bit? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic ban from ITN yes, block - no. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, pending mentorship proposal, see my comment above. If that fails to get off the ground or the mentor reports it fails to succeed, I'd reconsider. Definitely oppose topic ban, for reasons outlined above. Understandable motivation, but unlikely to succeed in this case. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless attempts at mentoring do not work, in which case I'd support a block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban. The disruption has gone on far too long, and there's no reason to believe that it will cease as long as HiLo continues to post on ITN-related pages. His adversarial approach has a chilling effect on discussion, discouraging the participation of both editors disagreeing with him (who don't wish to be berated) and agreeing with him (who don't wish to align themselves with his vitriol).
  Honestly, I don't know why a topic ban wasn't enacted after consensus was clearly established here.
  As noted above, HiLo sees nothing wrong with his conduct, so a block is unlikely to inspire reform. If he's willing to accept a mentorship, this is worth trying as an alternative to a site-wide ban. —David Levy 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any level of action, at the very least a topic ban. It's nothing new, I've scarce seen an interaction in which HiLo took place without being insulting or condescending, not only on ITN but the front page talk as well, and there is a long history of AN/I. Frankly, it would seem that so long as nothing is done, he will continue to flaunt this; it is unfortunate because he is an active editor. If a block is deemed to severe I certainly support a topic ban, mentorship, or whatever else might be done to remedy this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading through some of the threads presented, I do not find the same pattern. Also, some comments by other editors in these threads show a similar standard of civility. I would suggest that if editors are concerned about civility they should ask an administrator to monitor the talk pages. Below are a few of the examples I looked at.
  • Wikilawyering. An editor argues that, since WP:NOTABILITY only applies to creating articles, not to article content, "Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation." Although HiLo48 had used the term "notable", WP:UNDUE would exclude non-notable content. It seems the accusation of Wikilawyering may be fair comment and yet AlexTiefling, who is calling for a block accuses HiLo48 in this discussion thread of Wikilawyering while providing no edit differences.
  • Are you trying to provoke me.... HiLo48 is replying to AlexTiefling's comment, "Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you...." Khazar2, who is the complainant in this case, then tells HiLo48, but not AlexTiefling, to be civil.

TFD (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the distinction to me was that HiLo had engaged in a long pattern of this behavior; I also didn't engage with HiLo about civility when he first called other editors "arrogant", BorgQueen "quite immoral", or the comment of another editor "stupid". After he continued the behavior for 24 hours, though, the pattern became clear. I don't believe Alex has the same history, either in this particular thread or on ITN in general. Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to show long term abuse here, especially when there are no blocks or sanctions recorded against this editor. May I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, whether or not your application here is successful. It is a much better forum when no single edit would warrant sanctions, but when they form part of a pattern. TFD (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama, but if necessary, maybe someone else can take the baton from here. But are things like calling another user a "prick" over and over really not actionable without that step? [14] Our civility policies are a lot more toothless than I realized. Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was uncivil to HiLo in that thread. I apologise for letting my feelings get the better of me. I came to that thread directly from the ITN discussion about Aurora, and I definitely should have gone and got a cup of tea first. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (but oppose block). We have to take this first step. A topic ban from ITN will make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate this kind of behaviour – and, if Dweller's fears that HiLo would simply bring this behaviour elsewhere come true, we can then escalate to blocks. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At most, mentorship should be used in place of blocking. However, there is no reason why ITNC should have to put up with his attitude while a mentor tries to help mend his ways. We can lift a topic ban if and when said mentor determines that future disruption is unlikely. Resolute 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and oppose block - the big guns can be called out later if needed, but right now a topic ban should solve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. One has to start somewhere. It is true that HiLo48 is not the only one with a systematic pattern of disruptive behaviour at ITN. Somehow, ITN seems to attract users who'd be blocked/topic banned/whatever for POV pushing, political soapboxing and incivility at just about any other page, and yet their conduct is largely tolerated at ITN. However, that does not mean that nothing should be done, in fact quite the opposite. If the worst offenders start being held accountable, the others will take notice. In my observations, HiLo48 conduct at ITN has been consistently non-constructive, often provocative and incendiary. A topic ban from ITN would certainly be a reasonable first step, to see if HiLo48 can engage in more productive editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, neutral on topic ban. HiLo's recent behaviour is obviously uncivil, but it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognising the problem and agreeing to correct it. A short topic ban probably wouldn't hurt, but may not be needed if there is a sincere undertaking to self-improve. Mentorship may also not hurt if someone is willing. But I'd be surprised if HiLo is not able to work out for himself what he needs to change. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognizing the problem and agreeing to correct it. And that's been asked of him many, many times. But in HiLo's view, the blame belongs to everyone but him. This is nothing new. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fair comment, but it may be that HiLo reflects on the concerns raised it this thread and resolves to turn over a new leaf. If he does, then I'd say its reasonable to take him at his word. If he declines the opportunity, then, sure, a topic ban is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  If that were to occur, I'd be delighted to take HiLo at his word and give him another chance. But we've been here too many times for me to expect such a turn of events. And this is HiLo's current assessment of a previous determination by the community that his behavior was unacceptable. —David Levy 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't endorse rude comments, ITN has all sorts of very major problems (in short: it's American-biased and often links to low-quality articles) and the points HiLo was making actually look quite reasonable to me. This comment included in the orginal report was made in response to an extraordinarily rude comment from AlexTiefling (which includes "You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms"). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think this misunderstands the issue slightly. Bias and premature postings are things that can be, should be and are discussed at ITNC while keeping a civil tongue. I don't endorse AlexTiefling's tone, but his assessment is basically correct. In this instance, HiLo was too strident and deaf to other editors. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That an actual systemic bias problem exists is all the more reason to put a stop to HiLo's disruption. His rants are so vitriolic that they accomplish nothing other than poisoning the well. When others attempted to express such concerns respectfully, their efforts were mistaken for HiLo-style trolling and unfairly dismissed. Regardless of where someone stands on these issues, his/her ability to engage in constructive discourse is compromised. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't agree with uncivil comments. However, ITN is, from my experiance and observations, a very frustrating area to edit in (reasonable criticisms posted politely are often met with strong, and often quite arrogant, counter-attacks), and HiLo was responding to fairly extreme abuse in that comment I linked to. As such, I don't see how sanctioning a single editor will resolve what's a much larger problem. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And what about his comments at the Ref Desk? Hot Stop 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of limited duration, oppose block. ITN may other problems with civility, but I'm not sure that excuses any of HiLo's behavior, especially since he's displayed identical behavior elsewhere (see, for example, BlackMane's diffs above where HiLo repeatedly calls another editor "a rude, impatient prick" or Dweller's where HiLo mocks a user's religion and tells them to leave Wikipedia). I hope we'll see HiLo contributing to ITN again some day, but until he cuts back on the vitriol, he's doing much more harm there than good. Mentoring sounds like a good step too if HiLo's prepared to accept it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, Neutral on block For a few months now, I've noticed that he has often been very uncivil when it comes to responding to nominations he feels are not worthy, and to comments made by other editors that he disagrees with. These comments usually lead to bickering between HiLo and the editor(s) that he rubbed the wrong way (one example). He is not always uncivil, but when he is, it always sparks some kind of argument that can be seen on the related ITN nomination. I would hope a topic ban from ITN for a while would be sufficient enough. He has shown this behavior enough in the past for several discussions to take place regarding his conduct throughout Wikipedia, so I would not oppose a block, but in terms of his behavior lately, I don't feel as though blocking him is really necessary unless he shows that he cannot be civil in future discussions. If the topic ban were to expire, and he goes back to being uncivil in the discussions, I feel he should be blocked. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (wide) topic ban, oppose block (for now) HiLo should be topic banned not only from ITN and its subpages, but from the refdesk as well and perhaps any WP/WT page. I would, however, oppose a block since I've found his editing outside those areas to be positive. Hot Stop 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per comments like these [15] [16] [17] its evident he's starting to take his rants to other areas of the website. Because of that, I think a block and topic ban is needed. Hot Stop 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nick-D. I deal with him on Australian topics all the time and while he is sometimes a little brittle to deal with (and possibly somewhat more in the topic area under consideration, from the diffs I've clicked on), he is a productive, cooperative and useful editor who works towards building consensus in discussions and is generally coming from the right place content wise. Dealing in difficult areas of the encyclopaedia where even editors who behave normally can be mistreated, it's not hard to lose perspective and get very hard-headed about things - I know that's happened to me before, although I've usually known when to walk away. Perhaps mentorship is the answer, I don't know. Orderinchaos 05:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've had a lot of interaction with HiLo48. 3/4 of the time we are opponents/disagree. But I have the utmost respect for them. They clearly understand what what an encyclopedia should be and work towards that end and aren't afraid to take a little heat in that effort. I find that their blunt talk much less nasty than the more clever wiki-lawyer methods of warfare more commonly used. They are a strong proponent of avoiding US-centrism in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or at least some level of action. Countless diffs can be provided of HiLo48's bouts of incivility. I have no doubt that he is a productive editor, but all of his efforts on WP:ITN have consistently been counter-productive and deliberately antagonistic.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, neutral on block. I'm not at all convinced that mentoring would work, and it remains to be seen whether a topic ban will either, but it's a start. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, user's disruption on ITN is a fairly big part of what makes that section of the main page not work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The diffs don't seem demonstrate anything topic ban worthy. This [18] is a comment on the content, not on the editor. This appears to be from the same incident: [19], it contains some minor incivilities. The edit summary here is inappropriate [20] but the comment is fine (and he raises a good point in the context). Yes there are issues with civility but they seem solvable and some mentoring could help. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban because we just cannot allow this type of immature disruption around here anymore. Yaplunpe 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Topic ban for sure, or maybe even a block, this editor needs to learn to work collaboratively before returning here and wasting all of our precious time. HellRaiser1974 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I move that this proposal has been open long enough (certainly by ANI standards), and that there may be consensus to topic ban. Can an admin please decide if it should be enacted? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree completely. I'll start a new sub-heading at the bottom of this report. Jusdafax 02:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose mentorship (and fallback to topic ban from ITN of HiLo48, if mentor is rejected)

No support for this

It seems that a topic ban is supported by a consensus of people above, and mentorship was proposed right before the poll above started. I would suggest that a mentor of AN/I's choosing be given an opportunity to guide HiLo48 for 2 weeks, if this mentoring fails, in the opinion of the mentor alone, or a consensus of other editors, then a 3-month topic ban from ITN would *immediately* replace the mentorship. If after 2 weeks, HiLo48 has demonstrated improvements, then the mentorship could end, with a warning to avoid further conflict or a summary 3-month topic ban from ITN would be imposed, solely at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I am on board with the idea but I personally think it would be more appropriate, given the rather lengthy period of these problems and HiLo's denial of any wrongdoing, to impose a (perhaps temporary) topic ban and mentorship concurrently. HiLo has said in his own words that he is interested in making this a better encyclopedia; to me, the best way to demonstrate this would be to work on other articles and take a break from ITN. If things look better the topic ban can always be lifted. I must admit I am also interested to see if ITN itself cleans up at all as a result of this, not just from HiLo taking a break but also perhaps the demonstration to others on the borderline that this is unacceptable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose If he wants to take on a mentor, that's fine. But I doubt someone who's been editing since 2008 will change now. And plus, as proposed it seems over bureaucratic. Hot Stop 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose I above suggested to the editor that regardless of the outcome of this discussion thread, that they file an RFC/U. Their reply was, "an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama". If the complainant shows that lack of interest in their application, I do not think that it merits any more of our attention. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC) If it's a sine qua non for you, TFD, I'm willing to pledge to start the RfC/U--and if this was the wrong place to come for repeated personal attacks, I apologize. I'm comparatively new to AN/I, and was just surprised to hear that it didn't deal with those matters. FWIW, I'd also point out that I'm far from the only complainant on this page, as the many diffs above demonstrate. Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Eh, disregard what I wrote above. As much as I dislike HiLo's abuse of other editors, I'd rather focus on content than spend another day or two researching and setting up a second community referendum on this. Hopefully, though, the many diffs above will be enough to obviate the need for further escalation. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's pretty obvious that there is divided opinion as to how to proceed. Rather than continue with the drama that will ensue if the discussion of a topic ban or mentorship continues. I propose that the discussion be stopped here with a very stern final warning that the next time that HiLo is brought here harsh sanctions will be applied. Blocking now will be punitive, a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill and mentorship of an editor who has been here for 4 years is demeaning. Blackmane (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support HiLo is too good an editor to block, to experienced to mentor successfully, and a topic ban won't fix the problem. The solution has got to come from within, and I wish that HiLo could just stop and count to ten or something. This sort of behaviour can't go on, because it is disruptive, and it is a distraction from good editing work. But it cannot be ignored. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe there is currently consensus for a topic ban, and all this does is circumvent that consensus. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As evidenced in the above mentioned "Previous DR Attempts", the point has not sunk in to HiLo that their comments are significantly below the minimum standard of civility for the page and at Wikipedia at large. Stern warnings have already been provided. This Alternative of an alternative of an alternative is an end run around the thin consensus for a topic ban from ITN. We're not supposed to give unlimited 2nd chances to unreformed disruptive entities. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that blocking now will be punitive, and a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill, but mentorship for an experienced editor isn't demeaning. It's a sign of respect and affection and It may work, and should be offered before more serious sanctions are imposed. But let's see if this discussion has an effect on HiLo's future interaction style first.

HiLo, I followed your pregnancy argument and in that you occasionally crossed the line in terms of civility, but not until you'd been called a pervert by a passing IP (and no one had criticised or removed the comment) and been patronised by Ludwigs2. I think you were told by someone that you are stupid, or it was implied. Someone criticised you for striding up and down the RfC comments, challenging any opposing view, but you weren't standing over or bullying people, you were arguing, which is what we try to do here. What really annoyed me was your propensity to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. Literally. Tell them their ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't advance your argument; it isn't necessary, it polarises the debate, and it makes you look unpleasant to deal with. And, as in the case of Ludwigs2, it can get you blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Don't mistake that I'm aiming to circumvent a consensus, which I don't see yet, and coming down on either side of the fence. I don't approve of HiLo's behaviour either and in fact, brought up their behaviour in the previous ANI. Given that there are examples of their incivility elsewhere, I'm not sure what a topic ban would achieve. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation I don't know if this provides any path to consensus, but it appears that editors who know HiLo primarily from ITN are almost unanimous in supporting action (the sole exception being the IP who asks HiLo to voluntarily take time off), while those who know him from other areas are conflicted or opposed. As linked above, an August 2011 ITN discussion, involving a number of different editors from the current one, was also one !vote short of unanimous in supporting a topic ban for HiLo.[21] The sharp divide suggests to me that HiLo is a largely effective editor elsewhere and a largely disruptive one at ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think he's just as disruptive wherever he goes. It's the same editor with the same interaction style. But he spends a lot of time at ITN, so I can imagine they'd appreciate a break from him. But let's see if he engages here and agrees to stop insulting his interlocutors. If that doesn't happen, if there's no recognition of a problem, we might as well just ban him, or agree to put up with the present style, because change is unlikely if you haven't acknowledged something needs changing. It's very late where he is, so this thread should stay open to give him time to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment HiLo is a fine, sound and decent editor. I refute most, if not all the claims here, and hope that editors can work together to help than gang up to hound out. HiLo has always been a good voice against many of the worst excesses of ITN/C, not least certain practices of rapid posting which I find questionable. He can be a bit 'robust', which is why I hope that co-operation can be chosen over banning. doktorb _words^deeds 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I respect your changing your mind, but given that you voted to topic ban him last August, you at least understand where we're coming from, right? [22] I'm not sure this is any more "ganging up to hound" than that discussion was. Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

*Sorry, Dr. B. I was curious about your change of mind, but didn't mean to open the door for you to be bludgeoned. Feel free to ignore my above comment. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Robust" is putting it kindly. HiLo's ITN behavior is a case of reasonable-sounding ideas with extremely poor execution; you have not addressed the many civility concerns that the above commenters have brought up, many of which have supporting diffs. How are they refutable?--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just quietly, Doktor, but "refute" does not mean what you think it does. It goes well beyond the sense of "deny" or "reject". --Pete (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lapidem might be worth reading.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - although I think it is not unreasonable to make it clear to HiLo that it is rather likely the next step, if there is one, might be to ArbCom. There does seem to be some basis for thinking that ITN and maybe a few other areas might benefit from some attention from ArbCom, although I doubt if it goes that far that HiLo personally will benefit from such attention. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It would seem to me there's fairly clear consensus to topic ban. You may be right - mentorship of a long-time editor may accomplish nothing, and it may be so that he will learn nothing regardless of what is done, but that would tend to suggest that he's beyond correction and a block is in order. If he hasn't gotten the message the last dozen times he's been warned, what makes you think this time will be any different? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Without weighing in on one side of the proposal or the other, I wish to note that competence is required not only in editing, but in working collegially in the community as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing punitive about a block for long-term disruptive behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This is about 3 questions in one. Not sure which of them a "support" or "oppose" note would refer to. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal was to close the discussion with a final warning for HiLo that the next ANI on their behaviour would result in some sort of sanction. I kinda threw it out there since mentorship had no support, a topic ban had some support but not any sort of clear consensus. I'm not against any of those proposals, just merely going by the points of view from those that have commented in those proposals. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but with a 2 week block The guy appears to be basically a good guy who is getting too wound up. Neither a topic ban nor a long term block are in Wikipedia's best interest. He needs a stiff warning, and the proposed warning will probably do it. Giving him a two week block at the same time would reinforce the idea that it was serious, and give him time to cool down. The guy does a good job - but over-does it some of the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request administrator decision and closure (HiLo48)

Seeing as the comments have slowed down over the past day, this would seem to be a good time to request that an administrator decide if community consensus has been reached regarding HiLo48's editing at ITN and elsewhere, and to close the report. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we wait a bit please? HiLo hasn't made any significant edits for a while. He's a veteran editor who has contributed a lot to the project. Can we give him some time to reflect? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A cynic would say he's simply waiting for this to go away before he starts up again. He's had ample time to comment here, but hasn't. Hot Stop 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that it is almost unanimous among the people who commented here who are also active at ITN that HiLo should be topic banned, so I agree with Hot Stop's assessment of the situation. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin would do well to consider not so much a straw poll of the !votes, but the totality of the circumstances; consensus shows that HiLo serves Wikipedia best continuing to edit articles, and is a detriment at WP:ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Which, conveniently enough, is what the consensus here suggests. Hot Stop 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sad to say, he isn't taking the criticism on board, as his comments on his talk page demonstrate. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I supported this anyway but in light of this I strongly support taking action. I frankly do not understand why this has been put off for so long, consensus has existed for several days now. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Several days is not a long time. We've been giving HiLo time to think and respond. He's chosen not to respond. Imposing an ITN topic ban would simply shift the behaviour to other areas of the project. If his interaction style is disruptive, which it is, and he doesn't acknowledge it, which he hasn't, an indefinite block seems appropriate. But as TFD points out, it would be improper to apply that sanction without presenting evidence of the long term problem, and no one can be arsed doing that. So I'll support the ITN topic ban for now as it might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is also continuing to discuss this issue with editors at his talk page; as long as he's not disrupting ITN in the meantime, I agree that it's worth waiting to see if any progress can be made there. Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am on the verge of amused that no admin has yet been bold enough to make a call on this. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I alternate between amusement and puzzled depression. Will no one admin step up and finish this, please? Jusdafax 06:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Hot Stop 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor continues to insist that labeling someone's comments "idiotic" is not the same thing as calling someone "an idiot". Given that, it's reasonable to assume he will continue using that kind of terminology and that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the editor has continued to answer comments on his talk page and edit elsewhere [23], it doesn't appear likely that they intend to return to this discussion, much less voluntarily accept mentoring. If the closure of this is being held to get further comment from HiLo, I'd suggest an admin at least post to their talk page requesting it. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would summarize the issue as follows: a) HiLo is a valuable contributor to the project despite any faults (which are minor compared to what he often deals with - plus incivility/bluntness is as far as it goes, it does not appear to be meant personally, etc), and b) since he is unlikely to change, any action or even warning is almost certain to lead to an eventual block, which is not justified by the consensus and is undesirable as per a). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So do nothing then? I missed that part of WP:CONSENSUS Hot Stop 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, we can be as incivil as we want (as long as it's not personal) to any editor as long as we contribute to the project? That would be a most interesting precedence to set. Not that I personally would do that.--WaltCip (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so because consensus to do X may lead to the user doing something that would lead to potential sanction Y (a sanction for which currently has no consensus) means the consensus to do X is invalid? I think, again, we need to have an admin decision here. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't say any of that. I only suggested a possible reason why no action has yet been taken - I think that it is not, in fact, an easy decision to make. (But of course, you are free to disagree.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

gotcha. It would still be nice if an admin decided to grace us with their presence. But I guess that's too much to ask for Hot Stop 21:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that if this doesn't count as incivility, I don't know what does. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 (talk · contribs) has returned to normal editing, has not addressed the concerns of editors raised in this thread, and on his talk page has made it clear he believes there is no problem with his style of interaction. Would an admin please review the above discussion and HiLo's reflections on his talk page and decide whether any action is warranted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say, we shouldn't tolerate an editor who habitually insults other editors. HiLo48 is arguing he is insulting their intelligence not them. I've seen him questioning people's motives a bit too. I grant that sometimes he may encounter stupid or ill-intentioned people. But announcing that his interlocutors are stupid or evil is a very disruptive thing to do. We all deal with fools here, and mean, nasty people. But this is an arena for argument, and ad hominem is a fallacy, and disruptive. We should be aspiring to the highest possible level of logical discourse. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have disagreed strongly with HiLo48 on various topics, and he is not one to mince words. But I do not see him hounding editors or engaging in other sorts of disruptive behavior. Some editors seem to think that criticism itself is incivility, as if being called arrogant,for example, were a deadly insult. But what really strikes me in all this discussion is the complaint that HiLo48 isn't groveling properly, and that his defending his position is proof in itself of his guilt. Once we've gotten to the point where defending yourself is proof of guilt we have become a lynch mob, not a deliberative body. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "proof" is in actions like calling other comments "stupid", "dumb" and "bullshit", the actions of others arrogant and immoral, asking other users if they are idiots, calling them pricks, swearing at them, bludgeoning discussions, etc.-- behavior that's well-documented above. You may disagree as to whether or not this is productive behavior, but that hardly makes the majority of editors who would like to see some sort of action a "lynch mob"; we all want to see HiLo return to productive editing. HiLo's insistence that he intends to continue doing these things simply suggests that nothing will change without some sort of formal intervention. Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Khazar2. This is not about buzz-words like "groveling" or loaded terms like "lynch mob" but a simple request for accountability. HiLo has helped to create an unpleasant atmosphere at ITN, and I think that is shown to be beyond dispute in this report. His attacks on established and new editors quite arguably drive away contributors to the ITN feature, and elsewhere. His utter failure to acknowledge any fault or failings confirms what long-time ITN editors know: this is an intractable person who uses numerous insults (and rank sophistry when confronted) to bully and intimidate others, when Wikipedia is supposed to work as a collaborative process. Khazar2 rightly asks for a ruling not only on the narrow aspects of this case but the larger issue of what place we want Wikipedia-en to be... either welcoming and inclusive, or a sort-of Wild West where virtually anything goes. In my view, that not one admin will make a ruling one way or the other speaks volumes about the dilemma we face as a community... the "time-sink" factor, where difficult calls have to be justified repeatedly in various forums. I ask that HiLo be indef blocked until he is willing to honestly discuss his over-the-top hostility and intolerance for viewpoints not his own. Failing willingness to do so, a simple topic ban would at least serve to demonstrate that the community has had enough, and I believe consensus has been reached on that. I yet again ask that an administrator do the job the community entrusted them with, and make a decision on Khazar2's ANI report. Dragging this out further is an embarrassment to ITN and the entire Wikipedia project. One way or another, let's move on. Thanks to all concerned. Jusdafax 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with Jusdafax's call for an indef block, but I would second the call for a close on this (whatever it be). HiLo has made it clear he won't comment further here, and the remaining discussion seems to be generating more heat than light. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Prick" is the first word I have seen attributed to him here that is necessarily aimed at a user and not a comment. Is there such a huge volume of these types of comments? That would merit something. But not his saying that arguments are stupid. When I see complaints of the latter type (and a demand that he be indef blocked until, yes, he comes grovelling back to accept our opinion of him, not our censure of specific name-calling) it makes me wonder how many serious incidents there are of the first type. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the comment that originally caused me to post here was his asking another user "Are you an idiot?" I can't speak to the volume of these comments, but I believe at least two have been cited from this week in the diffs above. But again I'd argue that repeated use of phrases like "what a stupid comment" pointlessly coarsen the dialogue of Wikipedia. They're not persuasive, have nothing to do with refuting an argument, and escalate discussions to higher pitch of anger--especially when HiLo bludgeons a discussion with them. It's the reason that ITN editors voted nearly unanimously in 2011 to topic ban HiLo from the section, and have again voted nearly unanimously here that some action should be taken.

As far as "grovelling", you're the only one who keeps bringing that up; all I'm looking for is for him to refrain from calling people--and yes, their comments--hostile labels that don't further the discussion. No grovelling, or even apology, required. Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I do view the position of some editors that HiLo be indeffed until he makes some sort of act of submission to the will of the collective as a desire to see him grovel. I oppose it in the strongest terms. But more to the point, I think there's a much more clear cut case to be made that if there are actual personal insults like "prick" that cannot objectively be described as anything other than insults, those and those alone (not including "are you stupid" type ones for the moment) should be collected and listed. If there's a pattern, a very short suspension would be warranted (i'd say 24 hours) with the warning that repeated behavior will carry a much more serious response, and the warning that insults posed as questions will be treated as personal attacks going forward. That's an objective standard based on outright actions and not one based on feelings that he has insulted us and perhaps pretended promises of contrition on his part. The focus should be 100% on observable actions and not on presumed mental states. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since only two users out of the 20+ or so commenting here have suggested an indef block, they seem unlikely to make consensus, much less form a sufficient "lynch mob"; I wouldn't let that sidetrack you overly much. As for the rest, we may just have to agree to disagree on whether "are you stupid" is civil and productive editing. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo and I edit together sometimes, and while we often have differing views on things, I'm getting weary of incivility and personal attacks whenever he doesn't get his own way. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be so unpleasant and time-consuming that we find other things to do instead of the joy of contributing to the project. I'm worried that after all this talk, all these diffs showing incivility, nothing is going to happen because no admin wants to publicly support one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the day has come when not one admin will stand up for one of the Five Pillars, this news is grim indeed. Jusdafax 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm bold enough to close this thread as a non-administrator since there would be no consensus for an administrative action (block, protect, etc.). The result would be for the topic ban discussion. — Moe ε 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd close this myself but can't. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking just for myself, I don't think this thread deserves a non-admin closure, no matter what the call is. This is a high-profile matter that has festered for years, as the above record shows. Jusdafax 05:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• There seems to be consensus in favour of an ITN topic ban, and further action if HiLo48 continues to denigrate his interlocutors. Can whoever closes this discussion, and I'd prefer it to be an experienced admin, please make it clear to HiLo48 that, whether or not this discussion ends with a topic ban, if he doesn't change his style of address he will be excluded from this community? There just is no place for his behaviour in a civilised, productive debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the bold attempt to wrap this up with non-admin closure but I also feel like due to circumstance this would be best dealt with by an authoritative admin to ensure that if a topic ban is enforced, it carries some official weight behind it. I just do not believe that if there is no real teeth behind this that it will do any long term good. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well since most of you feel that non-admin closure isn't best, I'll give you what I gathered from this, which you can either take or leave. If I was to close this, there was no particular consensus for mentorship or for blocking of any length. The consensus is that HiLo48's conduct on ITN-related project pages has been disruptive to the point of compromising integrity. I would have closed with six months of topic ban from In the News and related sub-pages with the ability to appeal beyond that period, given that he can prove his overall conduct in the WP/WT namespace has improved so future interaction at ITN is possible. Regards, — Moe ε 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this sounds quite reasonable to me, and an accurate summary of the consensus. Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma and University of Al-Karaouine‎‎ and associated articles

For some time now, Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) has been removing any reference of Islamic universities as having been "universities". The user claims that, despite several sources disputing his view, that they were only "madrasas" and that only European Christian institutions were "universities". This was attempted at University of Al-Karaouine‎‎ in March 2010 (also [24]) and a discussion held then (here) Unsatisfied with the result, the same thing happened in January 2011 (also [25]) with a talk page section opened back then here. Again, unsatisfied with that result, the same thing is happening today, with Gun Powder Ma making three rapid reverts ([26], [27], [28]) to restore his favored version of history, damn what the sources say. Can a user repeatedly attempt to force in his or her favored POV as though it were the only valid position to hold? And if they are unsuccessful the first time around, can they come back many months later and try to edit-war their favored version back into the article? nableezy - 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The user is unaware of the full picture: this topic has been thoroughly discussed by many users in 2011-12 on the talk pages of the two relevant articles which define the subject: university and List of oldest universities. The result of these discussion was that a madrasa, Muslim mosque school, is a very different institution from the university which has been a Christian creation of the Middle Ages. In a nutshell: The madrasa has been the institution of higher learning of the Muslim world and the university has been the institution of higher learning of the Christian world.

Why specifically Al-Karaouine‎‎ cannot be considered an university in the strict an historical sense of the term has been discussed for example here and specifically here.

That it is consensus that a Muslim mosque school or madrasa was no university can be gleaned for users unfamiliar with the subject from two things: Both university and List of oldest universities have been regularly cleaned from such edits by an array of users, not just me, but a number of them. University also lists the madrasa issue a minority view which is generous given the shallowness of the claim. In a word, the user is not well informed either about sources nor about current consensual Wikipedia practice. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apparently non-European Christian institutions must be cleansed from that page regularly. Last I checked, WP:NPOV was still a blue link. But that distracts from the issue of a user edit-warring in a favored version of an article, after multiple discussions rejected his favored view. That is what brought me to ANI, not the cleansing of any less than lily white institution from that list. nableezy - 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in previous discussions about this and there was no consensus at all, it just sort of petered off. But the case for excluding non-Christian institutions was extremely weak - there are certainly good quality sources which include them. Formerip (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend closure of this thread. This dispute is about content and needs no immediate administrative action. The closest thing might be the edit-warring, which should be referred to the 3RRN. To my uninvolved eyes, the claims of "NPOV" that do not address GPM's source-based argument here are particularly shallow. Nableezy should familiarize himself with the long and complicated history of disputes at the "university" and "list of oldest universities" pages, and make his fresh case for the inclusion of madrasahs on the article talk page. Shrigley (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this isnt "about content". I can deal with the content dispute. The issue that brought me here was GPM made the same disputed edit that gained no support in March 2010, then again in January 2011, and when reverted made two additional reverts. That is a behavioral issue, not a content one. Can a user simply attempt to outlast any opposition to their edits and edit-war in material that failed to gain consensus several times? nableezy - 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And this has continued at Morocco, with the user making 3 rapid reverts without anything resembling a consensus for his changes. See 1, 2, and 3. The user has also blatantly misrepresented a source at University of Al-Karaouine‎‎, saying that a source that says that the university became part of the state university system in 1947. supports the claim the the university was founded in 1947 (see here). That is straight forward lie, and a purposeful one at that. Is repeated edit-warring and lying about sources not enough to attract any attention at ANI? nableezy - 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As Shrigley has pointed out, the issue is about content and should be sorted out on the appropriate article talk pages. Nableezy seems to wish to pose the content dispute as posing Christian / European universities against Muslim / Asian and African universities. In fact, as I have pointed out several times[29] in similar disputes over the years, the issue is concerned with the distinction between universities, which it is almost universally agreed arose in Europe in the course of the twelfth century from earlier forms of education, which did not have the institutional structure and the consequent organizational and intellectual autonomy that arrived with the medieval European university. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That is incredibly dishonest. I am not here about a content dispute. I am here because an editor is attempting to "solve" a content dispute by repeated edit-warring. That is a behavioral dispute, something that is in the scope of this page. The only people that have brought up the "content dispute" here are you, Shrigley, and GPM. nableezy - 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a previously uninvolved editor (though I've had interactions with nableezy in the past I believe), I'm seeing mostly a content issue but one that has non-trivial behavioral problems too (mainly WP:OWN). I'm certainly not seeing the claimed consensus on the issue at the oldest university list. There appear to be only 2-3 people talking about the topic and there is certainly no consensus to be found there: it has been a case of which side reverts the most.

The key question is if "university" in this context is in the modern and more generic sense of "...a center of higher education and study" or specifically means one in the European model. One side is arguing for the historical sense another for the generic sense. Sadly, they are talking past each other and both sides have sources that indicate that they are correct, mainly because the sources don't agree on a definition. Some options would be to A) list both definitions B) just delete the list article (really this is a haven for OR as the exact definitions of founding etc. aren't at all clear) or C) rename the list article to make it clear it is referring to European-style schools. I'd say an RfC on the topic would be the best way forward, ideally with an announcement made pretty broadly (all talk pages of schools that currently claim to be a university maybe?) So for now I don't think there is much for ANI to do. I'd recommend keeping the status quo (keep the list as is, restore university to the Islamic schools' pages) until an RfC is finished. My 2 cents.Hobit (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, right? Logically enough, it has a Western (English-speaking world) bias to it. The history of Western civilization is clear that the university is a Western invention. This in no way minimizes the antiquity nor the academics of Asian and African schools of higher learning. The page is a WP list of limited scope. The scope is Western universities, as the lede makes abundantly clear. As I commented on the talk page, we don't see Italians grousing because Tarquin the Proud isn't on the List of pharaohs. Yopienso (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with repeated edit-warring at University of al-Karaouine (and dishonest source misrepresentation) and Morocco? For all this noise about not discussing content disputes here, several people seem intent on discussing a content dispute here. nableezy - 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FC Steaua București page

Hello!

The user Jjmihai violate wikipedia policy and is responsible for removing my work. Is not the first time when he did this, when disrupt my editing. Please, help me. Page FC Steaua București in Europe.

Liviu Marius Dobrea.

User talk:Liviu Marius Dobrea. —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is far from obvious what policy is being violated: this seems to be an edit-war over the formatting of tables or something. Perhaps you could explain more fully? Have you discussed this on the article talk page? I can't see how any action can be taken unless it is made clear what the problem is, and even then, you need to show that you've tried to resolve this through discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Liviu Marius Dobrea is a lier. This page was created by me and all informations are mine. he removed my work and posted his table over mine. I have only one account, I don't understand why i was blocked. See my contributions here. I just upgraded the page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_in_European_football&diff=504429618&oldid=504414065 and I added to page a "infobox European football" table, what is wrong? And i revert the page beacause don't respects wikipedia policy... "scoreline endashes should not contain spaces, per WP:NDASH; </'br'>" is an incorrect tag, <'br' /> is the correct version. What's wrong? Jjmihai (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.13.82 (talk)

Disruptive editing by user Jjmihai

Hi.

User Jjmihai keeps reverting FC Steaua București in Europe page.

He is responsible for disruptive editing against me and other users. Mortifervm (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC +3)

Per the instructions, you are supposed to notify the editor when you open a topic here. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about these sorts of articles. That said, I see one reversion by Jjmihai on July 26 and then nothing until June 29. You started a topic on the Topic page (good idea), with a terrible title ("Disruptive editing by user Jjmihai" - neutral titles are a little more collaborative), and a very funny question: which version do you like better, mine or Jjmihai's? (heh) A bit short on analysis, don't you think? Two people, uh, voted for your version, including one WP:SPA. The non-SPA at least said why they liked your version better. I think you need more in-depth, constructive discussion on the Talk page, including hopefully comments from Jjmihai. At this point, I see no need for administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. No one has commented here since Andy's and my comments. Yet, they are still fighting with each other. It's spilled over onto my Talk page (and Andy's) and at WP:3RRN. None of the group of editors seems to be following the rules. No one notifies each other. The one who submitted the 3RR report did just about all of it wrong, although I believe at least one of the editors is in fact edit-warring. They all speak Romanian to each other on their Talk pages, so I can't understand what they're saying. I think the dispute may even be more trivial than I had at first thought - something about dashes? And they happily call everything the others do vandalism. I'm tempted to lock the article and tell them to work it out on the Talk page, but I'm not sure if there aren't other related articles - so many articles about Romanian sports clubs, none of which I can follow.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would support full protection for a few days or so. It isn't the only option, but a viable one since the problem is communication and protection forces them to communicate to get changes made to the page, and hopefully to find compromise without an admin making content decisions for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I left a message on the article Talk page hours ago to try to get them to focus on the content disputes and try to work them out. Since that time, it's been eerily quiet - no edits to the article or to the Talk page. I guess quiet is good, but I'd like to see them collaborate with each other, or at least crystallize the nature of their disputes in a civil manner. Otherwise, it may just be a temporary lull.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Even the heartiest warriors must sleep sometimes ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sept 26th 2011 establishes the pattern, and recent activities use the same pattern. There is a clear case of multiple account abuse using an IP. Blocking Jjmihai and an IP for a couple weeks for first time offense, sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

my edits are from 06:48, 21 September 2011, not from Sept 26th 2011.

look here, when i added informations from steaua's competitions in europe link - 22:07, 11 December 2008‎. see history here informations was taken from this page, was not work of this guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.215.109 (talk)

You were sockpuppeting. Period. I don't care how accurate your posts are, you abused multiple accounts. Then you were silly enough to make legal threats. And every time your IP pops up, it will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FC Steaua București in European football informations added by me and removed by Liviu Marius Dobrea

Liviu Marius Dobrea is a lier. Informations from FC Steaua București in European football was stolen from FC Steaua București statistics and posted on FC Steaua București in European football, all informations was created by me. He removed my work and posted his table over mine. My table format is like to all the teams that have similar pages. Second, I don't understand why you have thought Liviu Marius Dobrea he said that i have multiple accounts, is a lie, i have only one account. so, why i was blocked?

See my contributions here. I just upgraded the page [30] and I added to page a "infobox European football" table, what is wrong? And i revert the page beacause don't respects wikipedia policy... "scoreline endashes should not contain spaces, per WP:NDASH; </'br'>" is an incorrect tag, <'br' /> is the correct version. What's wrong? Jjmihai (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.233.219 (talk)

User:Jaguar again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We previously had to mass delete stubs created by this user, after which they retired. Yesterday, they returned and continued the mass creation. Whereas I do not speak Chinese and may not appreciate the problems, I think it is worthwhile to alert the community. Please move this thread if appropriate. The user will be notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Thumperward#Autopatrolled and Special:Contributions/Jaguar. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Thumperward's talk page. Especially interesting is that Jaguar said "I am not going back to China" three days ago. It is not clear to me what was meant by that. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked one (Dongjinzhuang Township) and it doesn't seem to contain any major errors (unlike previously). However, it does not contain any information that is not in the parent list, not even the possible (and fairly obvious) interwiki link zh:东金庄乡 or the coordinates. Also, it is odd that the Chinese website given as source was apparently accessed last year. (That source is also on the parent article, Beishi District). In my view, even without errors, these stubs are still worthless. Jaguar should probably try some content creation instead, perhaps in an area where he/she understands the language. —Kusma (t·c) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god - what is everyone's problem here!? User:Thumperward gave me some advice saying that I need to gain some trust from the community, and that is what I am doing - creating some good quality stubs with no errors, like I had done this morning. I created 18 good quality stubs, with a valid reference, Chinese included, and better quality wording - what more could you ask for? I am creating these stubs nice and slow so that I can regain everyone's trust, get my Autopatrolled back and hopefully move on creating more. You are right; I am not going back to China. I did, however, create those 18 articles to demonstrate what I can do. They are perfectly fine. They are not worthless.

When I get my Autopatrolled back, I will assure you I will create some more slowly - but I don't know. I don't know what to do with my life. It should be sensible to close this discussion seeming this is not going to go anywhere. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, shouldn't you first create pages more slowly, then ask for autopatrolled rights? And why did you access all the source websites last year instead of now when you created the articles? —Kusma (t·c) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the sources would be fine - they are the same from what I was creating last year. Anyway, I am on the right track now, I think everything is fine. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer to Kusma's question is that you copied the reference from an article created last year by another editor. Creating articles based on sources you can't read is certainly not fine. Please don't do any more. Kanguole 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The source seems to be List of township-level divisions of Hebei. Which is not really a good thing to base articles on -- several of the newly created stubs have incoming links from other places, showing they need to be disambiguated properly (sometimes even the characters are ambiguous, and zhwiki has disambiguation pages in place). This is a mess. —Kusma (t·c) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I will be embarking on a cruise shortly, so I'll leave it to others (Kusma, you should have already seen this) to read what I explained at WP:NC-ZH. In short, stop treating merely ambiguous titles as mistakes, which are quite uncommon, and even going as far as describing the disambiguation situation as a "mess". GotR ^Talk 13:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "good quality stubs" are in fact worse than nothing. What you did is replace perfectly good redlinks in some list articles with pretty-looking, but contentless stubs that contain precisely zero additional information compared to the parent list article. This has been explained to you several times. You did not even do the almost trivial work to link your substubs to the relevant zhwiki pages, where more information can be found. Please find something else to do than creating pages for the sake of creating pages. Probably we should delete this batch again as you seem to listen to deletions better than to words. —Kusma (t·c) 17:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concern. If I am searching for something on the internet and see that there is a Wikipedia article with that exact name, I have an expectation that going to the article will tell me more than simply the item exists. That's virtually all you get with these stubs. You don't even get a location on a map. The article is worse than nothing at all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with the two statements immediately above this one; these substubs need a good case of WP:TNT. They discourage others from creating better articles, they provide no useful information to the reader, and they have sourcing issues. If your source were a PDF, I would assume that you'd just been using a downloaded PDF and kept citing the date on which you downloaded it (which is appropriate), but in this case, you need to look at the page and update your citation. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the stubs and taken to correcting the ref that he used. It links to the main district page so rather than badger him about the incorrect link, I'm linking it to the correct pages. I may do some content addition at some point. I've suggested to Jaguar that he not create stubs at the same ferocious rate that he did previously and also to get help from the relevant wikiproject. There really isn't a whole lot wrong with the stubs, excepting for the serious lack of content, which I think I'll take a look at. I'm working on another article translation, which I've been woefully neglecting lately. If Jaguar agrees to not create any more town stubs until the current batch has had some content added, I believe this would be a suitable compromise that would allow the articles to be kept. Anna Frodesiak has made some very good suggestions on his talk page and I have added encouragement that he work with her to learn more about content creation. Blackmane (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

These mass creations have gone on long enough by Jaguar. He doesn't have bad intentions, however the past few months of these over 10k+ creations of dubious value, and some with glaring errors, have created massive amounts of work and steered volunteer hours away from more fruitful activities. This is why we have a Bot policy (whether it's technically a bot or not, the premise is the same) so that one individual can't create massive amounts of work in such a short amount of time.

I really don't want to discourage Jaguar from working here, but these mass creations like this need to stop. If that means a topic ban on those creations... I'm not sure. But lest we forget how much discussion this generated last May, I'm dismayed to see it starting again so quickly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this kind of mass stub creation before, most recently with User: Carlossuarez46 creating mass-articles on Iranian communities like this, the exception being that Carlos provides a small amount of census information. I believe there should be an official policy dictating against mass creating poor articles with templates. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one for the Village Pump. Well, I've just corrected all of the ref links and titles on his stubs plus moved one due to a misspelling of the pinyin. I agree with Shadowjams that Jaguar should be discouraged from mass creations, especially those in a foreign language. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I believe that a policy against template created or "inadequate" articles would help Wikipedia on the whole, and I will submit that idea to WP: VILLAGE tomorrow. I didn't catch a wink of sleep last night, and i'm dead tired. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing such a policy sounds very difficult. I'd prefer to continue handling on a case by case basis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:TNT may have been appropriate in the previous round, because most of Jaguar's creations were totally lacking in Chinese, which is an absolute MUST in order to access more detailed sources and look up locations on a map, only had administrative detail up to the prefecture-level, which is two levels above the township-level, and least important, used the province's entry at XZQH, which has frequent gaps. However, many of these issues have been dealt with this time around, and if free of errors, describing the new stubs as "worse than nothing" is misleading.

Such a policy is not going to happen when even 1-million+ cities and counties are virtually one-liners. Of course, there is the almost total lack of articles on towns and townships, each of which usually have a population into the thousands, which is an unequivocal demonstration of the horrid systematic bias here on EN-Wiki—I even suspect some of you here are willing to keep portraying China as a monolith with no detail or variation, as much of the media does when showing a non-Alpha-global city (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taipei) on the map of China without any provincial-level boundaries. Not to mention, township-level divisions number into the tens of thousands, and are subject to changes every few years because of China's urbanisation. Maintaining this attitude will only ensure that we never have significantly greater coverage than at present.

However, I do support a potential WP:VILLAGE policy if it applied literally to villages only. At least in the Chinese case, villages may be subject to far more frequent changes than township-level divisions are. GotR ^Talk 13:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can close this now. On his talk page, Jaguar has [31] to move on from making stubs in this area and recognises the difficulty that they have in working with a language they don't understand. Personally, I laud Jaguar's efforts in their attempts to add content, or at least the beginnings of some content, to the encyclopaedia. Blackmane (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking feedback on mass messages

Hi, I'm trying to avoid winding up at this noticeboard. Here's the situation:

I want to mass message 1000 specific editors with User:EdwardsBot (to which I have access), asking those editors the below message. Would it be canvassing or otherwise problematic?

"I'm contacting you because you have participated in the WP:HighBeam, WP:Credo, or WP:JSTOR partnerships where those research databases donated free accounts. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create a Wikipedia Library--a single point of access for approved Wikipedia editors to gain free entry to all participating resource providers. Your feedback on the proposal would be appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks for your consideration."

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Library

Thanks for your guidance! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please get approval at WP:BRFA for launching an operation like that. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't thought a messaging operation would need approval at BRFA, but that's not a bad idea. Thanks for the tip! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

IP keeps removing information from Paraskevi Papachristou

User:46.198.54.220 keeps removing sourced information concerning Paraskevi Papachristou's expressed support of Golden Dawn on Twitter, claiming that the information is not relevant because "she's not a politician". However, considering that Papachristou has been expelled from the Greek Olympic team for posting racist comments on Twitter, and at least one article says her support of Golden Dawn was a factor in the team's decision to expel her, it seems like someone should intervene and tell the IP to quit removing sourced, notable information. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the specific section since she here denied that. I also searched google for interviews of her expressing support to golden dawn but i couldn't find anything. --46.198.54.220 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because she denies it doesn't mean the sourced information should be removed. It just means that the fact she's denied it should be added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It should only be included if its relevent, in context, and improves the article. This notion that "its sourced so it belongs in" really needs to addressed and settled in the porject, as this notion is the number one used reason for including material in articles it seems. --Mollskman (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

About Niemti

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

request delete and change visibility of defamatory statement at science ref desk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

An editor, User:70.179.170.114 has posted a defamatory statement at the science ref desk comparing a named car repairman to a mafia gangster. This is defamation per se. I have deleted the information which seems like an intentional attempt to embarrass someone using wikipedia. But I believe its visibility should be changed, and the user admonished to say the least. Can someone please help? μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC) s

I have filed a report at BLP requesting they change the visibility of the comments, thinking on the second hand that they might act more quickly, but please help if you see this is still visible. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, this is an overreaction. The IP indicated an that the customer salespeople at a named dealership act like members of the Mafia. This is actually not defamatory as it is not a factual statement about an individual. And of course you're assuming without knowing that it isn't true. Truth is a defense, just saying. Anyway, I decline to revdel this, and while I won't disturb it, I won't even have collapsed it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a very different understanding of BLP than I. So, because the dealer might be a member of the mafia, we let the comment stand? Given this is a question at the reference desk, would it be appropriate to contact the dealership and ask them for their comment? Truth is a defense--that means the one accused of libel could attempt to show the comment was true--if he couldn't the comment is defamation per se. Our standard is not to make claims for which we have no reliable evidence, and not to make even the semblance of personal attacks. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no accusation that anyone was a member of the Mafia. The IP made a comment that simply was meant to illustrate that the customer sales people were unhelpful. It was hyperbole, and neither defamatory nor a violation of WP:BLP. Of course if another admin disagrees they are free to act as they see fit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict. I couldn't have said it as good as Xymmax, but he's correct; thanks, Xym.) First, he wasn't a "dealer" - just a service advisor in the dealership. That's how I felt about his overall aura, but I suppose I let out more about my feelings toward him than necessary. I'll remove it, and have since made a newer version removing references to the Mafia and gangs, and the specific dealership. Now that I'm chilling out about the issue a little, I realize some comments were stronger than they needed to be. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, this is just some nut-job who thought that Wikipedia was the right place to rant about some bad service instead of Facebook or Twitter. I have to agree, taking this to ANI is a little bit of an overreaction. It's just trolling. If you would like, an oversighter could delete any information which you find to be violating privacy. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the BLP concern was more the fact that the question was basically, "is this person defrauding me or commiting some professional misconduct?" 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the BLP concern is indeed defamation per se, then that would definitely be an allegation of injury to trade/business/profession. But the stated concern is allegations of criminal activity (in this case, the Mafia). Where does it say this so-called poor salesman has anything to do with crime? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, fraud is a crime, but the OP also said something about how the guy seemed like was a collector for the mafia or something to that effect. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for showing us that. My main point is that all of these allegations, however absurd they may be, must be removed and/or oversighted, but only if the community agrees that the content is defamation. I certainly agree that they are indeed defamatory. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP user has graciously removed the original question from the science desk and resubmitted it on the miscellaneous desk without the problematic information. He has also requested that the visibility of the original post be changed. If some admin here can effect that it would be appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision deleted. I am an oversighter as well, and I have reviewed the case and determined that it doesn't merit suppression. I think this can be closed now. NW (Talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future Perfect at Sunrise

There is ongoing discussion of an image (File:Bane_Tom_Hardy5.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) going on here due to a dispute over the image size. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has opted to become involved in the content dispute, but is now threatening blocks on my talk page to enforce his chosen point of view. He is also using his admin tools to force things his way (deleting prior revisions of file uploads, protecting the page, etc). All this while the discussion is still unresolved. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• His comment on your talk page does not dispute the content, rather explains why others dispute it. You should provide a diff where/if he disputed related content before giving you an administrative warning. If you think your edits are within the policy, you can start an RFC on the talkpage. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• As a fair-use file, large versions can not be used on Wikipeida, and in cases where a reduced size has been supplied larger versions in the history must be deleted. Fair use requires low resolution; 300px on the longest side of the image is, IIRC, the generally accepted maximum size for a fair use file. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I consulted the policy and guideline, and it merely said anything approaching 1.0 megapixels (height times width in pixels) would need an expanded fair use rationale. Anything below that then would meet the policy/guideline... there seems to be some confusion amongst editors about what the text of the policy/guideline actually says... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• @Locke Cole: Would you be so kind to explain what you would like the administrators or experienced editors to do in this case? Arcandam (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At the very least validate that I'm not losing my mind in thinking an involved editor is using his admin tools inappropriately... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Future Perfect is following wiki policy. nothing wrong with that. in addition, you deleted a no-fair-use-rationale tag without offering a rationale [32]. that's highly disruptive.-- altetendekrabbe  18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention uploading the full high-resolution version of the image in retaliation, which also is highly disruptive. --MuZemike 19:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit, it was a little WP:POINTy, but you can understand my frustration of dealing with an admin involved in a content dispute, can't you? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How is he following Wikipedia policy? Which policy is he following, and how specifically is the original image not meeting policy? I checked, and the image (at 0.4 megapixels) is well below the criteria for being an inappropriate resolution. Also, I didn't realize the image was being used in an article without having a FUR, and you'll note I added one once I realized that.. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Future Perfect has had to delete that file 4 times in 24 hours. At this point, what you are doing is clearly a form of edit warring. Simply using the basis of 3RR, he could have just blocked you. Instead, he gave you a proper warning and made it clear what the consequences would be. In this case, choosing to warn you first was the right thing to do and I would support his actions. Oh, and his interpretation of non-free files is exactly right. That isn't really a discussion topic, that is a policy. I suggest you quit while you are ahead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Quit before you're further behind, I'd suggest. Locke Cole, you may like to read WP:STICK. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Er... he "had to delete" the image? Why did he "have to"? 3RR doesn't apply.. at all, not even close. And keep in mind, there's still ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bane_Tom_Hardy5.jpg as to whether a lower resolution image is even necessary. That discussion has not concluded, but this admin has taken it upon himself to delete the image, all the while protecting the page and leaving a link to a discussion that, given his action, is apparently moot (even though there's no consensus there that the larger image is bad)... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since you chose to re-open the discussion after I closed it, read and understand WP:NFCC 3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." He is not involved in a content dispute with you, he isn't violating any policy and is actually reflecting what the majority of editors at that discussion and on this noticeboard already know. The image you tried to upload repeatedly to make a point does not meet NFCC 3b. 300px length-wise is a rule of thumb for reducing large-resolution non-free images. You do realize there is a bot that automatically does what Future Perfect at Sunrise did, correct? The bot reduces the files to that size, roughly, and administrators delete the past revisions. You are exaggerating wholly saying we are reducing it to postage stamp size at the content review page. It's about as big as you're ever going to need it for Wikipedia within our guidelines. What exactly do you need a non-free image that large for? You aren't going to even use the full size of the reduced image in an article, much less the larger image you were trying to upload. Again, my suggestion is get more familiar with large non-free images and what we do with them, rather than trying to hammer the point of Future Perfect at Sunrise being a bad guy. — Moe ε 02:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion or not, policy stands. If a group of 6 people on some talk page decide that a 1000px x 1000px is fine for Fair Use, that is meaningless as the policy dictates the limits, not consensus. There might be room for discussion on some minor point, but in general, the policy is pretty clear. The real problem is you reverting back over and reuploading multiple times. Even if you thought he was wrong, the very act you did IS edit warring. Period. To change the content of a file is no different than changing the content of a page, and the act of reuploading the same or larger version is the exactly parallel to reverting to your preferred version. In this case, he didn't have a preferred version and was implementing policy, just like reverting vandalism, so is exempt. You are greatly mistaken and the consequences of continuing this battle should be quite clear by now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• @LockeCole: I would hardly call myself a fan of FPaS, and I hold firm opinions about the inanity of some of our NFCC policies, but this seems straightforward to me: non-free images are allowed under stingent circumstances, one of which is that they be of the minimum possible size to be usable. As someone pointed out above, 300px is the generally accepted parameter for the short side of the image (although I'm not sure that's written down anywhere), and that's a reasonable size for almost any use within articles. If there's a reason that some specific image needs to be a bit larger, I've had some success with explaining why on the image's page -- but, really, I see little need for significant overage, especially since a large number of non-free images are used in infoboxes.

  In short, I don't see where FPaS has done anything wrong, and I agree with Dennis Brown's analogy between edit-warring on text and multiple re-uploads of images: they're basically the same thing, and continuing to do what you've been doing seems likely to get you blocked, for entirely no reason at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassing editing, part 2

Thanks for the quick response from Sandstein about 77.254.201.1, but there's more to it. I suspect that situation was retaliation for an editting war I've been engaged in with what is likely the same user (from Poland, according to the IPs) over the inclusion of minor earthquakes on the Current Events page under the following:

• 77.255.124.159 - The first IP whose addition I deleted.
• 77.254.218.156 - Which also posted an improper 'final warning' on my talk page earlier this week.
• 77.255.106.112 - Used once.
• 77.254.204.88 - Used once.
• 178.37.103.227 - New as of this morning, and like the previous MO, the IP is labeling my edits as vandalism when I am clearly tagging my edits with a WP:Notability link.

Farolif (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Too large of a range for a range block without cutting off tens of thousands. WP:RFPP might be an option if they come twice with two different IPs, but they are cycling through the IPs too fast for blocks to be anything except symbolic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

AConservapediaEditor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AConservapediaEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - troll, SPA, likely sock on talk:Barack Obama. Can we please deal? Sorry, I cannot notify right now, but they are on notice. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like he was already blocked by User:Acalamari.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Muslim Brotherhood

For some reason I forget, I've been coming across Muslim Brotherhood-related articles over the past few days and I'm shocked at the amount of, well, shit is in these articles, treating people like Frank Gaffney, who claim that CPAC is a Muslim Brotherhood front (no, seriously), and other crypto-Dominionists and racists as completely reliable sources. I'd ask that all admins and people watching this page be very vigilant of these articles, as stuff like this could be potentially very problematic for the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about the terms you use to describe those people per WP:BLP please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I really should be, though I should also note that these conspiracy theories, if they existed 80 years ago, would refer to Jews instead. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Spshu

User:Spshu has determined on his own, with no consensus from WP:TVS, this board or any other, that subchannels (ex: WHSV-DT2) are not notable. With zero consensus or discussion, he/she has unilaterally decided all subchannels (no matter their programming) are non-notable, even edit-warring in some cases. I gave a finale Only Warning after finding numerous articles marked with GNG templates with zero discussion. The user has not come to us at WP:TVS or any other board to establish consensus and is relying on old discussions of this board (dating from 2006 to 2009) to show his consensus, which there is none. As we all know, consensus can change.

As edit-warring and near-vandalism like deletions continue, I am asking ANI to deal with this. This near the same kind of edit-warring that User:DreamMcQueen participated in no more than a week ago (he was blocked for 24 hours). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• has been notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring continues on numerous articles to the point I have issued a 3RR warning as the user is either at 3RR on some articles or nearing 3RR on others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like note that Neutralhomer is the one mainly edit warring over this. He's edit warring with me at the WVIR-DT3 article. I've tried to discussed this with him, but he would not have a constructive discussion about it. I started a discussion at Talk:WVIR-DT3 and got no reply. I've asked him to stop edit warring in my edit summery, but he continued to revert without explanation. There is also an ongoing discussion about this at WikiProject Television Stations. Powergate92Talk 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When I first came into a discussion about this on your talk with my opinion as an involve editor, you replied and then archived the discussion not even giving me time to reply back. So I started a new discussion to response to your reply, and you would not say where this consensus you were taking is, or how an unsourced article meets the general notability guideline. In the end of discussion you said "all further posts about this will be deleted." That's not what I call having a constructive discussion. Powergate92Talk 04:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping you'd get it on your own and I wouldn't have to explain it to you, as I just did on WP:TVS. As someone who claims they know alot of television stations, you don't know very much. Let's just say I was trying not to embarrass you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gross BLP violation by User:Bittergrey

User:Bittergrey is currently the subject of (this RfC/U). Although I have avoided, for years now, all contact with Bittergrey and the pages that he edits, I have entered my opinion and related endorsements at the RfC/U .

In writing his comments (to User:WLU), however, Bittergrey wrote:

"Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved." [33]

I am both a WP editor (User:James Cantor) and the subject of a BLP (James Cantor). To accuse me (very falsely) of having a financial interest in any of this, never mind in supporting WLU, is a gross violation of BLP policy. I have deleted the offending statement, indicating precisely the reason why.

However, given his tempestuous history (with me and many others), Bittergrey is unlikely to take any statement from me seriously. WP is ultimately responsible for the presence of such statements on its pages, and Bittergrey needs to be told exactly how serious such BLP violations are.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This comment is totally uncalled for and is clearly a BLP violation. I don't think that it is enough for oversight, however. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU has written James Cantor into articles five times, and cited him 38 times. In this regard, he is second only to James Cantor himself (with seven and 45). This publicity and visibility is good for James Cantor's standing as a professional. Clearly, he can profit from it. As a result, he has a financial interest in supporting WLU and weakening anyone who might be in conflict with him, such as me. This is particularly true if CAMH publications including his are frequent topics of debate, which they are in this case. He has a lot to gain (or keep) if the decision goes against me. Thus, he does have a financial interest, and should not have claimed to be uninvolved.

To qualify "Heavy", WLU cites the publication ten times in the infantilism article, even though it only mentions infantilism on one page. It is cited nearly twice for each time it uses the word 'infantilism.' In the whole of Wikipedia, the only active editors who cite it are WLU[34][35][36][37][38][39] and Cantor[40][41]. WLU also cites two publications of Cantor's coworkers at the infantilism article, even though they don't use the term "infantilism" at all. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

By Bittergrey's logic (a self-declared paraphilic infantilist and an amateur activist for his own views of his practice) Bittergrey has the same "financial interest." In fact a greater one, since Grey does not have any credentials or academic post as alternatives to promote their own work and views. I leave it to Wikipedia to determine what sort of editor it wants to retain. For the record, I'd take Cantor the professional academic over Bittergrey. But your mileage may vary. It's a brave new world. The expert is dead! Long live the amateur activist!Bali ultimate (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bali ultimate, I haven't made a dime off of my involvement in either infantilism or Wikipedia, and I don't ever expect to. That is what "amateur" means. I hold down an unrelated full-time job to pay the bills. No finances means no financial conflict of interest. If I did this professionally, like James Cantor, then yes, I would have a financial conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're just a semi-anonymous crank who gets to defame professional academics for kicks on Wikipedia and get away with it because of the incompetent moderation here. Your own conflict of interest is your own desire to control articles about your interests. So it goes. So it goes. (For those interested, here is the website Bittergrey runs [42], which is promoted on their userpage.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with Bali's choice of words I have to agree that both users seem to have a COI. James has pledged to avoid editing certain articles because of this reason. It may be a good idea to make a similar arrangement with Bittergrey and/or topic ban Bittergrey from Cantor-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. At the moment I am too lazy to do a full background check like I normally would. p.p.s. Please see User_talk:James_Cantor#Hiya_James.21

While getting some quick background I looked at a user talk page and found User talk:Bittergrey#Behaviours... where BitterGrey has recently engaged in connecting-the-dots regarding editors who are in good standing with the community—it's not an egregious case, but it is not helpful. Can anyone explain whether BitterGrey's presence is required at paraphilic infantilism? If not, a break from that topic might be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you his presence is not required at paraphilic infantilism or any other article on Wikipedia. Arcandam (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for some expansion on this comment? Doesn't AGF require accepting the possibility that anyone can become a contributing editor? Before FiachraByrne got involved in August 2011, most of the sources for the article were from me. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can, I'll be glad to explain it a bit. It sounds a bit harsher than what it means. Please read WP:DIVA if you haven't already. No, I am not saying you are a diva. But what I am saying is that we, as an encyclopedia, do not depend on a single user with expertise to write an article about a specialist subject. Just for fun lets assume I am an expert on the effects of global warming (I am not an expert on anything, but whatever). If I get hit by a bus we don't have to delete the article on global warming. So basically no single person is required to be here in order for us to succeed as an encyclopedia, not even Jimbo. Arcandam (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Not a native speaker, please let me know if I am unclear and/or make mistakes.

How is this a BLP violation if this comment was made at his RFC/U? Was BH making comments about the user or the subject? Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean BG? That user is a subject of an article. And WP:BLP applies outside of articles. Arcandam (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Johnuniq,etc.)

Effectively, I haven't been able to edit the paraphilic infantilism article for a year[43]. WLU has seen to that. Breaks/bans against me would be academic. Taking down the lingual comment was suggested at yesterday's ANI thread, but the RFC/U was opened before I was able to consider the advice. By the way, one of the edits that WLU wouldn't let me make was to change "behaviour" to "behavior." I'd be OK with changing the entire article over to the British spelling, but the spelling should be consistent.

I've been spending more time on wikibreak, and at different articles. However, WLU just follows me to them, spreading conflict. An example is Sexology, which escalated to ELN[44].

As for Bali ultimate's comment about the "incompetent moderation here," he might want to give some thought about why this BLP wasn't brought to BLPN.

Also, according to Google scholar, infantilism isn't Cantor-related[45]

However, given that James does have a conflict regarding the outcome of the RFC/U, should he be deleting content from the "responses" section of the RFC/U[46]? Since this round started with WLU deleting my comments[47], Cantor's censorship is strangely fitting. If I'm not going to be permitted to mount a defense, the entire process will be pointless. BitterGrey (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Cantor's refactor. And the next time you accuse him of having a conflict of interest in the RFC, you'll be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BitterGrey has simplified the discussion by asserting "conflict" just above, with a wikilawyer's "should he be deleting content" assertion, and with a helpful RFC/U diff to highlight BitterGrey's egregious misuse of Wikipedia to assert a COI of a named real-life person paying a named editor—all with zero evidence (apart from a wall of diffs that are totally unrelated to the COI assertion). Conceivably the above comment suggesting this report should have been at WP:BLPN might have been in good faith, but reality favors the "raise any smokescreen to deflect the discussion" interpretation. In light of the information at the RFC/U, and given the failure to produce any evidence of a named real-life person paying a named editor, and given the above re-linking to that assertion on the report dedicated to the topic, it is clear that BitterGrey should be topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to sexuality. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, James Cantor's action was a straight-up undo, it wasn't a refactoring. Bittergrey made the comments, James undid the whole edit, the net result was to revert back to this version. I'm agnostic on what should have been done, but at no time did James make Bittergrey say something Bittergrey didn't initially say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A solution?

Right now the text has again been reverted. Though I view the entire edit made by BG to be offensive, accusatory and wrong, it's still BG's view on the situation. The offending text in question appears to be solely what James Cantor quoted above:

“ Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved ”

Rather than undoing the whole set of edits (then redoing then undoing ad nauseum), would anyone have any objections to re-doing the edit but removing the quoted section? That seems to be the best way to address James Cantor's (valid IMO) issue with the edit while allowing Bittergrey to express his opinion during a RFC/U. Endorse? Hate? Ban me for suggesting it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A misunderstanding?

It seems that my comment has been misinterpreted as implying that money is being exchanged between Cantor and WLU. That was not my intent. James Cantor and his colleagues would be benefiting from the publicity that WLU is providing on Wikipedia. In addition to Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree; WLU has fought to cite two other publications from Cantor's colleagues. Freund & Blanchard (1993), which discusses masochists and pedophiles, never even using the term 'infantilism.' (Not using the term was the reason WLU gave for removing the DSM[48]. WLU has removed other sources because they didn't mention the appropriate term[49].) F&B (1993) wasn't even cited by their colleague, R. Dickey. Dicky's letter to the editor, on "autopedophilia" was not peer reviewed and so is not a medRS. It also doesn't use the term 'infantilism' at all. Were it not for WLU's efforts, these two sources wouldn't be cited. Thus, James Cantor and colleagues Blanchard, Freund, & Dickey benefit from WLU's efforts.

I'd be willing to reword the comment to make it more clear, or to provide diffs to support the levels of promotion. However, it is difficult to maintain any faith in Wikipedia's discussion process with the rampant deletion of my input[50][51][52][53]. Now those reading discussions can't see the who story, just the fragement that one side chose not to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism by user Irānshahr

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran-Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967

Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) continues to move a discussion about sources used in the 2012 Aurora shooting article from his user talk page to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado.[54][55][56][57] While he is welcome to delete the discussion from his talk page, I've asked him not to move it to the article talk page without my permission.[58] My understanding is that it is a violation of basic talk page etiquette and civility to move a discussion from a user page without the permission of another editor, to a page that a user does not wish to edit. The relevant article is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting, but Canoe1967 is trying to make a WP:POINT by arguing for a WP:POVFORK. In any case, I would like Canoe1967 to ask users in the future for permission to move their comments to other article talk pages and to stop moving my comments at this time. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait one second, check the helpdesk, I will post a permalink without moving anyone's comments in a few minutes. Arcandam (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to slam my edits all over if need be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question here. Arcandam (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The best thing right now would be for you to simply drop it, ignore and avoid Viriditas, and move on to something more important. Arcandam (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all if they will stop pestering my talk page with yet another dispute tag since this one. I am trying to keep an article under control while other editors are trying to help with good faith edits. Some editors insist on pushing their WP:POINT which is not helping others that are trying to follow consensus, guidelines, and policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why I used the word "ignore". Ignore Viriditas, whatever Viriditas does, even if Viriditas posts on your talkpage. If you see Viriditas somewhere, avoid Viriditas. Forget that this ever happened, stop giving a fuck, and move on. This is a technique that has been proven to work over and over again. If you see any better options, please let me know, but my gut is full of truthiness. Arcandam (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never had a problem following that advice. If you have time you may wish to read Talk:Sondra Locke, the 6-8 dispute forums it was discussed at, the toilet I flushed on my talk page, the laughable/failed sock and ANIs filed on me, etc, etc. I finally stopped giving a fuck because I had far better things to do with my time. This article should be kept under control. We should not waste his and my good editor time on POV issues with it. I do believe he is a very good editor and contributor but if you feel I should not give a fuck then I feel he should WP:STICK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But you should too! Just drop it. And to be frank, neither of you should really give a fuck about articles on Wikipedia and if they are in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Its just not important enough. Remember, this is the internet. If someone is wrong on the internet and you point it out but you do not get the result you want there is a good solution: just stop caring. This may seems like a weird strategy but in the long run it really works. You are not responsible for keeping that article under control. Wikipedia won't fire you if it is the wrong version. Someone eventually will come along and fix it, maybe. That summarizes our philosophy here pretty well. Arcandam (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. "But you should too!" = ? I don't have a wp stick, wp pov, wp point. It is the 'maybe' term that you used that scares me the most. There is no reason for a wrong version to exist. If editors don't like a version then stub it and start from scratch. I did this with an article at the blp board recently after someone wanted neutral input but didn't want to blank it themselves. I trimmed it by 800k to 1mb down to 2 paragraphs I think. Now they are building it ground up from the talk page because they had no choice. If they revert I will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

POV means point of view, so I think you have one. A point is not something you have, it is something you make. And it doesn't matter if you have a stick or not, just drop the topic. The word "maybe" is the important part. You shouldn't care about if it happens or not. Just forget it. There is a reason for a wrong version to exist: life is not perfect. I think that you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere if you want to improve this encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you think is not important to what others think. I think anyone that doesn't have any faith in perfection should take a long look in a mirror before they even attempt to judge others that can actually make it happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do have faith in perfection. I got it by looking at a mirror, just like you suggested. Look, if you don't want to take my advice that's fine with me, but I honestly do think you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere. We currently have 6,933,332 articles. Arcandam (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Perfection" is subjective. This "there is no reason for a wrong version to exist" misses the point. Each person has an opinion about what is correct and incorrect on an article, and when these don't mesh is where content disputes come from. "Wrong version" is a way of saying "No matter what version of an article is protected in a dispute, someone will think it's not the right version". There's no way a wrong version can't exist in a content dispute. Looking at it from the "my version is perfect" perspective leaves little room for discussion and consensus building. Your version is not perfect. The person you disagree with? Their version is not perfect. It it was, everyone would agree on it. - SudoGhost 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesdbell8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Account appears to be sockpuppet of indef-blocked editor User:James dalton bell. The reason for asserting this is not merely the obvious similarity in names but that both users are raising essentially identical arguments at Talk:United States Bill of Rights, namely [59] and [60] Crispmuncher (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Are there any other objections, other than this? You know, like rudeness, bad language, hostility, or anything like that? NO??? And, you should go back to the original "indef-block" to see if it was done to a person who began using WP less than 2 weeks before, and was attempting to correct a clearly-libelous set of postings in violation of the current WP: BLP policy. (Maybe it was even a violation of WP:BLP policy BEFORE the incident.) Indeed, the reason the BLP policy was changed around then was that WP had a very seriously-flawed policy that allowed trolls to post libelous comments, and as long as they could get some colluding WP administrator to back them up, have such a VICTIM indefinitely banned. Also, the WP policy on 'appeals' is clearly flawed, because a banned person cannot force an appeal to occur...if no administrator cooperates. Finally, the whole idea of an INDEFINITE ban so thoroughly smacks of abuse that it is truly breathtakingly improper. Finally, I say: Prove it! WP administration apparently works like the Church of Scientology, it wouldn't be surprising that there's a connection somewhere. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be the first to criticize the tiny minority of our admins that is clearly incompetent, but comparing them as a group to the Church of Scientology is a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a block-evading sockpuppet by SarekOfVulcan, and I've just declined his unblock request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedian Impersonation and bogus request to admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 28 July 2012 at 19:51GMT an unregistered Wikipedia user identified as User:67.218.41.166 posted an unauthorized request on the talk page see (here) of Wikipedia Administrator User:Tiptoety to have my Rollback privileges removed. User:67.218.41.166 then forged my signature and saved. Approximately 1 minute later at 19:52GMT they reverted their edit then reposted the same request again. In response, on 29 July 2012 at 00:12 I posted a message on User:Tiptoety's talk page informing them that the request to delete my rollback privileges was bogus and that the signature in that message was a forged. I would like to request immediate assistance from a Wikipedia administrator to stop this person from committing further acts of impersonation. I DO NOT know them and I don't have a clue why they would choose to forge and impersonate me. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit about a gun in a school

I just noticed this edit, which is a little troubling. I'm not sure if it's a cry for help, or what. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• 7th grader in an elementary school?... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what are you asking? (I've sent an email to emergency@wikimedia.org, just to be safe.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a cry for help. It is probably referring to this news story. This can probably be closed. Arcandam (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But that was Ohio. The school in the article is Chicago. Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but... but.. eh.. Meth is a hell of a drug. Arcandam (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A soft pellet gun is not by any means a deadly weapon. However there are numerous models that are made as replicas of real firearms, so there are obvious issues with bringing them to a school. (Just adding some background here.) Looie496 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim

I am having an issue with User:Bluerim. It has become a consistent issue as of late. It has been an issue off and on with this user over the past few months. I recall when first encountering this user, this was a constant issue I had with this user. I have repeatedly asked him recently to discuss changes on the talk page and he will not. One of his recent edit summaries stated "What's to discuss?" About two or three weeks ago, there was a GAN process going on for an article and I asked him to discuss changes, which he didn't until about the end of the GAN process, but he didn't really discuss. I brought this to an administrator who said they couldn't really do anything about it with it being a GAN process but they say they'd wish Bluerim would be more diplomatic on the talk pages (he hasn't yet). I won't lie, I'm probably guilty of the 3RR rule because of this, and this user is probably also. I'm not here to report a violation of 3RR, I'm here to report that this user has been asked repeatedly to discuss changes and he has not, and it's become an issue. Here's the most recent example that I'm referring here (times 6:32 July 29 back to 6:10 July 28). JDC808 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing and using the Edit Summaries. Many of these edits are minor and all the information required is in the ES. The above user needs to understand that not all his edits are valid and at times he displays ownership and blindly reverts. That said, I'll spell it all out - as tiresome as it might be on the minor issues - for his benefit on the Talk Page. Bluerim (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You should revert back the the revision which you and him weren't edit warring. You should then discuss on the talk page of the article to achieve consensus for the better revision.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)